The fact is Holmes dominated much better fighters and a longer period....subtract the false myths he struggled with sonme and lost some.....Holmes is a era detriment b/c he coasted some times....the reality is his only clear loss was to Tyson an spinks one b/c he was injurded which he redeemed himself despite the corrupt decision in spinks 2...Holmes suffers from the hyped up era that was before him ...in fact he beat out more plished boxers than the 70's guys had,and he has the defenses to prove that....Hearns???P4P he was better but greater? No.

i guess i just broke the tie and this is somewhat similar to the pac/man holyfield one. i picked hearns based on fighting atg fighters close to there prime but i now realize i may be wrong as he lost to both srl and marvin although his effort was amazing against srl in both fights. Beating duran while looking impressive really not considering duran's age and condition for that fight. Larry holmes is so underated as a Hw. this is a tough call.

i guess i just broke the tie and this is somewhat similar to the pac/man holyfield one. i picked hearns based on fighting atg fighters close to there prime but i now realize i may be wrong as he lost to both srl and marvin although his effort was amazing against srl in both fights. Beating duran while looking impressive really not considering duran's age and condition for that fight. Larry holmes is so underated as a Hw. this is a tough call.

Whatever the decision was, the second fight was a clear win for Hearns. It's just one of those really damn unfair fights. He has a win against Leonard on his record. Just because some backroom politics took it from him shouldnt erase that he did indeed beat Leonard in a boxing match.

The Duran win was great for two reasons: he'd just come off a 15 round hard fought decision loss to Hagler, and Hearns knocked him out in 2 rounds. No one else got remotely close to doing anything like that to Duran. The fact that Duran shouldnt have been at 154 and was well past his best comes second to those I think.

Holmes is a great HW, still underrated despite being a consensus top tenner. He's right up there for me. Ticks every box and ticks each one a lot better than most. Would have been better off to have been born a little earlier or just a little later. Nonetheless, being sandwiched in between those two eras didn't grant him any favours. He still had a lot of really tough, hard guys to fight, a lot of big wins and a lot of underrated wins over guys that make todays chumps look like what they are, second rate hacks.

I say Hearns is greater. Both are all time great fighters but Hearns career was just better.

Holmes had one of the best jabs of all time. He was a big and dominant heavyweight. He beat some good fighters and had a long run as Heavyweight Champion. But where i see him not as great as Hearns is this. His domination and long run at Heavyweight came at a time when the that division was in a transitional stage. By the time Holmes started making his mark Ali, and all the great fighters from that era were finished. So IMO Holmes domination was a combination of his his size and boxing ability but also because the level of competition dropped due to a new era was trying to established itself. He just didnt have any great hall of fame caliber fighters to fight. They were only good heavyweight. So he never really had a fighter who was going to push him or be a real measuring stick to where he is all time. Dont get me wrong Holmes is one a great heavyweights of all time but when comparing him to Hearns his career all time status is lower than him.

For Hearns he fought in the golden age of his weight class in boxing. He went up against many top all time great fighters. He won lots and lost only a couple along the way. But For Hearns to compete in that era of fighter where there was SRL, Duran, Hagler, and many others greats and win. That puts him in rare air and it puts him above Holmes.